Engaging and marketing to stakeholders in World Heritage Site management: a United Kingdom multiple case study perspective

Abstract

This research addresses the limited studies which apply stakeholder theory to World Heritage Site (WHS) management and managerial theory to heritage management. WHS management highlights a context where sites rely on numerous interests uniting through goodwill. This is intensified by the multiple-ownership patterns which characterise many WHSs, necessitating a need for collective action. This study aims to explore how managers attempt to manage stakeholders and generate involvement and support. This study adopts a multiple case study approach, exploring three United Kingdom WHSs. Data were collected through interviews, documentation and physical artefacts. The analysis found that through representation, raising awareness and support, managers were able to generate stakeholder patronage. However, this required managers to look beyond informative engagement toward participatory means. Furthermore, the findings highlight the importance of the facilitators, time and money in successful stakeholder engagement. Lastly, conclusions, limitations and future research are offered. Underpinned by stakeholder theory, this paper contributes to the understanding of stakeholder engagement within WHS management and adds to limited empirical studies on multiple sites. This investigation found that engagement is constrained by managers' limited time and resources. Furthermore, participatory engagement is essential in fostering stakeholders' responsibility for site management and developing relationships with managers. ARTICLE HISTORY

Conserving Italian World Heritage Sites Through Live Music Events: Exploring Barriers and Opportunities

“…For example, this is the case of Edinburgh (Leask et al, 2013), where an action plan has been devised as to ensure that internal and external interests are combined for the promotion of awareness and knowledge of WHS through different projects and a portfolio of events and festivals. In addition to this (and in relation to the importance of the social narratives that individuals attach to heritage landscapes), further studies have shown that events and festivals can be effective marketing tools for fostering WHS awareness, knowledge, and community support as they are means to achieve stakeholders' involvement, participation, and heritage attachment (Connell & Gibson, 2003;Lochrie, 2016;Stewart & Strathern, 2003).…”

“…A lack of marketing creativity, together with a general reluctance of the heritage sector to collaborate with the tourism industry and introduce nontraditional forms of participation have generally been noted as barriers preventing many WHS from maximizing those opportunities that would bring revenue generation through tourism (Bullen, 2011;Du Cros & McKercher, 2015;Landorf, 2007;Lochrie, 2016). Tight financial budgets often force site managers to reduce services or look at alternative strategies for financial support such as increased admission fees; sponsorship packages; online marketing; and indeed the hosting of special events (Aas et al, 2005;Leask et al, 2013).…”

“…The "Festivalization" of WHS Despite the conservative picture provided above, it must be noted that an interest in exploring the complex relationship of unconventional forms of tourism (here creative tourism) has lately manifested itself (Bennett et al, 2014;Janiskee, 1996;Lochrie, 2016;Richards, 2007Richards, , 2011Silberberg, 1994;Timothy, 2011). The need for creating alternative and contemporary forms of visitor attractions in response to the decreased interest in traditional heritage has been brought up by those academics and practitioners who have applied the experience economy principles (Pine & Gillmore, 1998) to heritage tourism.…”

“…needs of the buildings themselves with those of the external actors surrounding them such as residents, tourists, and businesses (Leask et al, 2013;Lochrie, 2016). The introduction of an additional dimension of social actors in this context opens a dialectic regarding the variety of stakeholders that may (or may not) be directly (and indirectly) involved in matters related to UNESCO heritage sites.…”

“…MELPIGNANO AND AZARA use (Du Cros & McKercher, 2015). In this light cultural tourism activities are strictly evaluated by heritage sites professionals (i.e., administrators, archaeologists, historians, and governmental agencies) against the opportunities they offer for assets' rejuvenation and the threats they may present to the protection of the cultural values of the WHS (Aas et al, 2005;Landorf, 2007;Leask, Hicks, & Chuchra, 2013;Lochrie, 2016;Seeger, 2015;Shalaginova, 2008;Silberberg, 1994;UNESCO, 1972). Du Cros and McKercher (2015) argued that although the benefits of a partnership between tourism, arts, and cultural heritage management are well understood and advocated; in practice "tourism and CM stakeholders often do not understand each other's interests, do not share a common language or goals, and are confronted with limited and incomplete data to inform decisions" (p. 13).…”